Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

By principled I mean movements bound by core principles that support a cause or achieve some purpose. Is that an inaccurate way to use the word?

Anyway, I just don't understand[your response. I don't see how more Muslim-perpetrated terrorist attacks means that Islam lends itself to terrorism (more than other religion). Isn't that a logical fallacy? Correlation doesn't imply causation and that stuff.

Also, can you provide evidence that no other affiliation has engaged in the number of terrorist attacks?


I don't know what you mean by this. The comma is confusing me.

That said, you've given me a lot to think about, and probably will give me more to think about.



You are right. I hope in the future I will be able to express myself better.

A Muslim-perpertrated Terrorist Act doesn't necessarily mean that.

Presuming though, that you are talking about a Terrorist Act committed in the name of Islam - that too doesn't necessarily mean that (the person could just be crazy)

In order to determine whether Islam lends itself to terrorism...one needs to not only draw a correlation to events, and what the perpetrators are saying, known to believe - but see if it is supported by...it's holy texts, it's founder, and it's history (surely you're not surprised by this statement by now?)

Err, talking about logical fallacies...you can't prove non existence.

This can also be written without the comma.

With the comma, it adds emphasis to 'no one that I know of'. Ie it qualifies the phrase in a way that implies 'there may be others that I don't know of, who can see an end in sight'

Why have you ignored the "more than other religion" part.

Yes, support can be found. My point is that it's unfair to say Islam lends itself to terrorism more. I'm not sure if you've explicitly disagreed with that at this point.

See a previous response to you:

Further back in this thread, you will find me having said multiple times, each ideology can be judged on it's own merits.

Comparison tends to excuse (because people go 'oh well, XXX is happening too)...when no violence in the name of religion is acceptable'

Comparison tends to minimise (because people go 'oh well, XXX is happening, so it's not as bad as I think)...when no violence in the name of religion is acceptable'

Comparison tends to justify - because it gives people a reason to not challenge it, while challenging those who do challenge it (this behaviour effectively supports the acts, which is the same as saying one thinks it justified)...but no violence in the name of religion is acceptable

Each ideology, and each religion can be judged on it's own merits.

To imply that the violent side of an ideology or religion (AAA) cannot be criticised because XXX is has violent ideology; or because XXX is violent it is unfair to criticise AAA - is simply nonsensical. The violence/violent ideology of both can be criticised.

Because each ideology can be judged on it's own merits - comparison doesn't need to come into it (except to determine if a person is engaging in double standards). Further, 'fairness' in terms of which contributes more, becomes an obfuscating concept . It confuses, diverts, and minimises away from the concepts that:
- each ideology can be judged on their own merits; and
- no violence in the name of religion is acceptable.

The simplest, most grounded answer is -each contributes the amount that it contributes.

I think upon reflection I associated you with someone who was support of the thread's question because you were opposing the people defending Islam earlier in the thread. And I attacked you without understanding what you were really saying. I think you've brought up some good points, but it's very much a knee jerk response for me to feel angry when people criticize or hate on Muslims because I know how that type of behavior can affect communities, especially religiously mixed communities. I really just want everyone to love themselves and each other.

I think it's interesting that you said "the violent side of the ideology." I know in the past you've mentioned the dualistic nature of Islam, but saying "violent side" implies that theres a peaceful side of the ideology to which non violent Muslims adhere. I suppose it depends how one defines ideology but I've always taken it to mean dogmatic and rigid and thirsty for indoctrination. There's a distinction I think between faith and ideology. And I think that people believe that most Christians and Jews have pretty much moved on from an ideological practice of religion and rather practice their religion through faith. On the other hand people believe Muslims for the most part practice their religion ideologically. I guess the term Islamism sums that up quite nicely. I guess since I'm from a relatively progressive Arab country and I live in the West most of the Muslims I've encountered have been reform minded. They have a close relationship with God but acknowledge the need for reform in terms of archaic practices and systems of law. Young Muslims want democracy. Many of them want to unite under a common Arab identity to solve sectarian tensions. The women are active in trying to advance their status in Muslim communities so it is off putting when Westerners say Islamic is violent in its ideology when i think many dont operate under an ideological framework, which is part of what I mentioned above -- the transformation from ideology to faith and then vice versa in the last few decades.

No one wants to be told that something they hold dear to their heart has a violent ideology. I can see what you mean about open and honest discussion but it has to be initiated in a way that Muslims can make sense of. I personally don't believe saying Islam has a violent ideology is useful or beneficial, because it seems like an attack on their faith even though it's not really. Its something entirely separate. It's a critique on how violence in Islamic scripture can influence terrorism. I also think it's important to acknowledge that misuse of Islam isn't an isolated case. There's an element of tact that people don't recognize the importance of if they want people to listen.

You have good intentions, but I think they could be executed better.

To continue --- terms to differentiate the way the religion is practiced like Islam and Islamism are highly useful. They show a clear divide between the people who want an Islamic State and those who dont support one. It's important to make a distinction between the interpretations, especially if you disagree with saying the Islamists aren't true Muslims.

I wanted to have a a few supplementary comments.
Firstly about the meaning of the word "Vali" in:
Koran 5.51:- "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends.."
Arabic is a complex language. Also the word "vali, in plural: avlia, ولی، اولیا" is a complex word itself. It has a wide range of meanings that can be started simply from friend... to someone who has authority over others or the leader of a country (for example the president of a country is a "vali" ). The prime "vali" is God (Allah). Then prophet Muhammad. Shia Muslims believe that the next vali was " Imam Ali" that was chosen by prophet Muhammad (see The event of Ghadir Khumm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_event_of_Ghadir_Khumm) while Sunnis say the next vali was Abu Bakr.
Advising Muslims to have a friendly relation with Jews and Christians who are not making war on Muslims doesn't mean that they can have a blind trust to them. We know that your government's slogan is: " In God we trust", but in fact they do not trust in anything in the way that they trust in dollars. Muslims cannot say optimistically that they will help us in any case.. It says Muslims must rely on God and themselves (though keeping their good relations with others.)
_____________________________________________________

In regard to a very wise point that my dear father Izzy said:

Many of verses in Quran speak about the oneness of God (Tawhid). To the best of my knowledge we can refer to all of them without need to refer to explanation.
But many of the verses of Quran are applicable laws in daily life (like Jihad). In such cases, what I've found from years of reading Quran alongside my academic studies, is that getting a PhD in mechanical engineering is by far easier than gaining authority to explain such verses because of the their complex nature. A HUGE amount of knowledge of firstly Arabic language, secondly history of Islam, thirdly the context of those verses, and then many other technical knowledges is necessary.
So when some people talk about Jihad in that way, I wonder. Jihad is not an obsolete order (at least the kind of Jihad that our leader and other clerics learned us, is scientific Jihad, meaning that we must compensate our backwardness in science at the time of Shah(s) by taking more efforts trying to learn Physics, Mathematics,... etc. (though it is easier said than done)).
Now it is not my claim. It is unanimously accepted. You can walk in the streets of Tehran and see boards of Jihad meaning that we must rebuild our country ASAP by the whole our power.
Also Quran is not the only source of instructions and orders in Islam. It is one of 4. Excuse me if my English is not as good as it must be but when it comes to technical religious topics it's hard to translate. Those 4 are:
1-Quran
2- Wisdom
3- Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد, ijtihad, lit. effort, physical or mental, expended in a particular activity) is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question.
4-Sunnah (sunnah, Arabic: سنت, plural سنن sunan [sunan]) is the verbally transmitted record of the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions (or disapprovals) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, as well as various reports about Muhammad's companions.

So, Quran is not the only source that you must refer to. You must see what other 3 say. Clerics who have passed years of study and experience over those 4, can explain them. Also, even those 4 are not enough. They must have political sense and have good knowledge of what is happening in the world. Somebody who cannot distinguish his right hand from his left hand is not the one that you can refer to for explaining Quran. Even if he has passed years of study. Again, these are not my claims. You can have a study on "velayat-e faqih".
There are serious doubts over this issue that whether Wahhabis believe in the second one (wisdom) or not.

THE reason that I accuse Vikorr and many others on this thread is not because they criticize Islam. I'm open to that. It's because their understanding of Islam is really SUPERFICIAL.

To some degree it is natural because your media is not really honest with you. Sometimes quite dishonest. I am not talking about FOX news. I am talking about even a more decent news agency like Guardian. Those are all part of a plan that you must conduct a survey what is their purpose of concealing and censoring the reality while they all claim that their mission is to awaken people. Why they use "IS" rather than "ISIL". I can find tricks even in such abbreviations. ( I used IS already, but now I must say that the true word is ISIL).

What I've read about the history of radical Islam clarified for me that ISIL is before anything the children of some western countries and Wahhabism. They, themselves brought ISIL into this region. I don't think, I am sure. Muslim countries have very many potentials that attract western countries. Oil and gas is one of them. Different races exist. Religious conflicts are high especially between poorly educated people. So by agitating these people by such tools they could sell their weapons (you see just Saudi Arabia bought 100000000000$ weapons from America during last 6 years).

That was the reason that I told vikorr that you cannot separate blind terrorism under the name of Islam from western interferences in Muslim countries. They, themselves brought it into this region. You cannot say that's another subject. Wahhabism (under the support of Saudi Arabia) that calls Shia Muslims Kafir (the same root with the word Takfiri, means calling someone unbeliever) was the best tool for their plans.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
They ignited the fire of religious wars in ME so they could ultimately take the control of this geopolitically very important part of the world.
Besides they could sell their weapons alongside and still be the good guy in the eyes of world having snobbery gestures in front of the cameras and talking about the glory of peace.
(note that I separated this part with dollars)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

About what I read from the posts of Vikorr about the concept of Ummah (the whole community of Muslims)
It doesn't separate non-Muslims who leave peacefully in the society, from Muslims. For the same reason, you see when a few years ago ISIL attacked non-Muslims in Iraq, the most influential Shia cleric in Iraq, Ayatullah Sistani called for Jihad against ISIL. Muslims went and saved non-Muslims there.
Islam is a complicated religion and speaking about it needs by far more than some google searching and studying a few books ...
_____________________________________________________

Some of the SUPERFICIAL TRANSLATIONS OF ISLAM and VERY TRICKY INTERFERENCES OF SOME WESTERN COUNTRIES lead into these radicalizations.

sorry live not leave

If you tried to show an innocent image of America I must mention that these are just words.
About Iran air flight 655 just look what happened. When the commander of that disaster returned to America they gave him a legion of merit. Almost nobody in Iran believe that excuse. That's the source of a really deep obsession here about America.
What I mentioned are just a few topics of a very long story.
About the nuclear proliferation, the world is not honest.
There would be no drawing down of arsenals while there are America and Russia at both sides of this conflict. Just look where you and Russia have been and where you are now. Also look at Israel. Nobody talks about it. (It's really funny for me than being bitter)
Obama threatened Iran of a nuclear attack a few years ago,
CAN ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT?
It's 2016. Threatening a country officially in front of the eyes of the whole world and against all the universal rules? Are you Obama really serious!!!
Ban Ki-moon was silent.
Buy the way I am an optimistic person and I can imagine that you tried to alleviate my pains. So thank you.

It seems like within any group no matter how positive or righteous it is as its core message there always seems to a few assholes who find their way in and give the group a tarnished reputation.

Even within the US there are nutcases who make the headlines committing terrible acts of violence but as a result everyone who actually can play nice with each other get punished for it.

Bad apples in every group spoil the peaceful co-operation and civil interaction. They act out of line but the whole group get punished as if everyone in the group hold to those same violent ideas the idiots displayed.

Hello Perennial,

I'm not opposed to people defending Islam (just like Sky is doing). I am opposed to people:
- refusing to acknowledge or talk about terrorist events in the name of Islam (Islamism), or about whether or not there is scriptural support for such
- making judgements in ignorance about Islam(ism) and refusing to correct their ignorance by looking into it for themselves) - while denouncing my opinion (which hold a lot of research behind them, and further, is evidenced by the continuing patterns in world events)
- using sloppy logic to support their views (which too many defending Islam have engaged in)
- using double standards to support their views (which too many defending Islam have engaged in)
- using 'comparison' as excuse to avoid discussing, or looking at the issue (which is such a common tactic in this thread)

If you go back and read any argument I have had with them - you will see that I am almost always addressing something along those lines with them.

I've considered what you were saying on differentiating between Islam and Islamism...ie talking about violence in the name of Islamism, rather than talking about violence in the name of Islam. You do raise a good point. There is still the issue with wilful ignorance in the west. The best compromise from my perspective may be 'discussing violence done in the name of Islam(ism)'

Ideology to me is simply a system of ideas. For this reason, I include in ideology: Patriotism, Economics, Religion, Politics (communism, democracy etc), Political Parties (reformism, conservationism, conservatism etc), White Supremism, Zionism etc. They all share the similarity that a system of beliefs underly the actions and objectives of adherents, in specificly related areas of adherents lives, and give adherents an affiliation (whether loose or tight) with other people of that group. Sometimes different versions of the same ideology lead to opposing groups within the same branch of ideology.

Faith of course, is a related, but somewhat different, and perhaps more nebulous matter.

You have a point.

For starters, any long term solution also needs the cooperation of Islamic leaders. And it almost certainly needs not just passive cooperation, but active cooperation (as Islamist organisations also tend to be activist organisations). The question is how to gain widespread active cooperation.


The other side to that though - is that the target audience (of politicians that I am talking about) are very heavily non-muslim, with little to no knowledge about what Islam entails, happy in their ignorance, but unhappy about the developing security situation in the world....and viewing Islam through the news of terrorism.

This....is the sort of discussion that I think is beneficial.

How do you engage in open, honest debate...that allows non-muslims to see what is going on, why it's going on, trust their govt.....and to gain Muslim leaders cooperation in completing a reform completely away from the violent aspects of the Quran etc?

The first draft thing I could think of however, runs into trouble: Ie. What if, like your suggestion, they openly associated Islamic terrorism as with Islamism 'an antiquated form of Islam' which most the Islamic world has moved away from...but that line suffers from the number of Islamic States in the world, suffers from the membership numbers that Islamist organisations have attained at times (Hizb has 1,000,000 currently), and suffers from the results of surveys of Muslim attitudes in Britain, and (I think) other countries.

There's a hell of a lot more questions than that, unfortunately...but like here, until it's discussed openly, these sort of thoughts don't develop and refine over time, into workable ideas.

I should clarify that other arguments have arisen between myself and certain posters, where they have either misunderstood, or tried to misrepresent my position. Some of those arguments, like with yourself, were to achieve correction or clarification, some were in regards to ugly behaviour.

But the main issues that 'I oppose' were those I listed.

Krumple,
Thank you for saying that a few people in your country are in favour of such terrible violences. I know that everywhere there are a lot of good people. It is the best thing of this world when I think of it. It gives me the hope to go on.
Again thank you.

Vikorr,
I just tried to brighten some vague sides of Islam that I saw open misunderstandings about them. Also I tried to find the clues of increase in some blind terrorist attacks in the name of Islam in some western interferences and dishonesties. If I challenged your opinions or anything else it doesn't mean that I don't like you. It's the nature of discussion. Sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
Overall, it was a very good discussion with you dear.

Hello Sky

I'm not sure if you understood. So to clarify - I was complimenting you on how you conduct yourself, including the way in which you defend Islam.

This article is notable in IS because it is about a group of engineers (ie highly educated). Highly educated 'terrorists' are notable because the official line is usually that Islamic terrorists are 'marginalised'.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/australian-terrorist-neil-prakash-plotting-remote-drone-attack/news-story/6312cdb2f5937a5a528671ff7b93b4d4

"Highly educated" doesn't mean much. Some may have knowledge in their area of study, but that doesn't make them "good humans."

I didn't say that it did. As I explicitly stated - Such postings are in relation to the political theme that Islamic terrorists are 'marginalised' muslims.

To me, it also seems widely assumed that only stupid people can fall for the violent interpretation of Islam.